Filed: Feb. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 17-1792 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. HAKIM THOMAS, a/k/a Dollar Hakim Thomas, Appellant _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Criminal Action No. 2-16-cr-00456-001) District Judge: Honorable William H. Walls _ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) November 14, 2017 Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Filed: February 13, 2018) _ OPINION* _ * Thi
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 17-1792 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. HAKIM THOMAS, a/k/a Dollar Hakim Thomas, Appellant _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Criminal Action No. 2-16-cr-00456-001) District Judge: Honorable William H. Walls _ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) November 14, 2017 Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Filed: February 13, 2018) _ OPINION* _ * This..
More
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 17-1792
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
HAKIM THOMAS,
a/k/a Dollar
Hakim Thomas,
Appellant
__________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 2-16-cr-00456-001)
District Judge: Honorable William H. Walls
__________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
November 14, 2017
Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
(Filed: February 13, 2018)
_____________
OPINION*
_____________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7
does not constitute binding precedent.
VANASKIE, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Hakim Thomas pleaded guilty to a single count of distributing a mixture
and substance containing a detectible amount of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841. The District Court classified him as a career offender and sentenced him to a below-
Guidelines term of 108 months’ imprisonment. Thomas now contends that the District
Court committed procedural error insofar as it viewed the Sentencing Guidelines as
mandatory and failed to adequately explain its rationale in imposing the 108-month
sentence. According to Thomas, these errors consequently resulted in the imposition of a
substantively unreasonable sentence. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the
judgment of sentence.
I.
Thomas sold six bags of crack cocaine to an undercover police officer in
November 2013. Thomas eventually pleaded guilty to a one-count information charging
him with distribution of 2.8 grams or less of a mixture and substance containing a
detectable amount of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C).
Pursuant to his plea agreement, Thomas stipulated that he previously had been convicted
of two New Jersey state law felonies––a second-degree robbery conviction in 2000 and a
conviction for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance in 2013.
However, Thomas reserved the right to argue at sentencing that these two convictions did
2
not qualify as predicate offenses so as to render him a “career offender” under U.S.S.G. §
4B1.1(a).1
In anticipation of sentencing, the United States Probation Office prepared a
Presentence Report (“PSR”). Pertinent to this appeal, the PSR concluded that Thomas
indeed qualified as a career offender due to his New Jersey felony convictions, a
designation that increased Thomas’s criminal history category from III to VI and
increased his base offense level from 12 to 32. Taken together with a downward
adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, which resulted in a total offense level of 29,
Thomas’s criminal history score yielded an advisory Guidelines range of 151 to 188
months’ imprisonment.
Both Thomas and the Government submitted sentencing memoranda to the
District Court prior to the sentencing hearing. Thomas objected to the PSR’s imposition
of the career offender enhancement, arguing that such a designation overstated his true
criminal history and likelihood of recidivism because he was only eighteen years old at
the time of his robbery conviction and did not serve any prison time in connection with
his past drug conviction. Alternatively, Thomas maintained that, even if he did qualify as
1
Section 4B1.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides:
A defendant is a career offender if (1) the defendant was at least
eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed the
instant offense of conviction; (2) the instant offense of
conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a
controlled substance offense; and (3) the defendant has at least
two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a
controlled substance offense.
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a).
3
a career offender, he was nevertheless entitled to a lesser sentence because the PSR’s
Guidelines calculation called for a sentence that was greater than necessary in light of the
underlying conduct to which Thomas pled guilty. Either way, Thomas maintained that he
should receive a sentence of ten to sixteen months’ imprisonment––the Guidelines range
he would have faced but for the career offender designation. Such a term, he argued, was
reasonable in light of what he could have expected to receive in state court for a similar
offense. The Government, for its part, opposed Thomas’s request and asked the District
Court to impose a sentence within the Guidelines range.
The District Court convened a sentencing hearing on March 29, 2017. Through
counsel, Thomas again urged the Court to refrain from applying the career offender
enhancement. Thomas himself was then given a chance to allocute, during which time
he described his troublesome upbringing and the circumstances that preceded his criminal
activity. The District Court also heard from the Government, which argued for a within-
Guidelines sentence “to reflect[] [Thomas’s] history of recidivism.” (App. 68.) After
taking both parties’ requests into account, the District Court adopted the PSR’s
recommendations in full, including the PSR’s determination that Thomas qualified as a
career offender. The District Court then “depart[ed]” downward from Thomas’s original
offense level of 29 to an offense level of 24, and imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of
108 months’ imprisonment followed by a three-year term of supervised release. (Id. at
77–78.) This appeal timely followed.
4
II.
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have appellate
jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the District Court’s
sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Maurer, 639 F.3d 72, 77 (3d Cir. 2011)
(citing United States v. Merced,
603 F.3d 203, 214 (3d Cir. 2010)). Thomas, as the party
challenging the sentence, bears the burden of demonstrating unreasonableness. United
States v. Tomko,
562 F.3d 558, 567 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc) (citing United States v.
Cooper,
437 F.3d 324, 332 (3d Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Rita v. United
States,
551 U.S. 338, 346–47 (2007)).
III.
Thomas raises three arguments on appeal. Specifically, Thomas maintains that the
District Court committed two procedural errors at sentencing, namely by: (1) treating
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) as mandatory and (2) failing to place on the record its rationale for
imposing the 108-month sentence. Thomas’s third argument is that the District Court, by
virtue of its procedural errors, imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
A.
We turn first to Thomas’s contention that the District Court erred by treating
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) as mandatory. To this end, Thomas maintains that the District Court
“seemed to ignore that the [G]uidelines are advisory, not mandatory,” and accordingly
5
felt “obligated” to find that Thomas was a career offender on account of his two prior
felony offenses. Appellant’s Br. 12. The record belies Thomas’s assertion.
“A district court should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating
the applicable Guidelines range.” United States v. Wise, 515 F.3d 207, 216 (3d Cir.
2008) (quoting Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 596 (2007) (internal brackets
omitted)). Here, the District Court did just that, stating at the very beginning of the
sentencing hearing that it was “prepared to adopt” the PSR’s Guidelines calculations, i.e.,
that Thomas had a net base offense level of 29 and criminal history category of VI.
(App. 28.) The District Court then engaged in lengthy colloquies with defense counsel
and Thomas himself about Thomas’s criminal history and personal background.
Following these discussions, the District Court noted that, although Thomas “is to be
considered a career offender” under the Guidelines, it was “concern[ed]” whether
Thomas’s sentence “should be more appropriately modified” due to “the nature of the
crimes which formed [Thomas’s criminal] history . . . .” (Id. at 67.)
It is evident that the District Court did not view Thomas’s career offender
designation as a categorical barrier to imposing a lesser sentence; to the contrary, the
District Court appropriately calculated the applicable Guidelines range and then imposed
a sentence of 108 months’ imprisonment, a term well below the recommended Guidelines
range. Thomas’s first challenge accordingly fails.
Thomas’s second claim of procedural error––i.e., that the District Court failed to
adequately explain the basis for its sentence––falls short as well. While “there is no
‘uniform threshold’ for determining whether a court has supplied a sufficient explanation
6
for its sentence[,]” Merced, 603 F.3d at 215 (quoting
Tomko, 562 F.3d at 567), the
sentencing court must nevertheless “‘set forth enough [information] to satisfy the
appellate court that [it] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for
exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.’”
Id. at 215–16 (quoting
Rita, 551
U.S. at 356).
Here, the District Court noted at sentencing that it was “well aware of the
requirements of [Section] 3553, which [it would] consider.” (App. 50.) The District
Court then proceeded to engage in a lengthy discussion with Thomas about his family,
criminal history, employment, education, and the seriousness of the offense for which he
was charged. At the conclusion of this colloquy, the District Court made clear that it had
“spent substantial time listening” to Thomas’s concerns and would impose a sentence
reflecting Thomas’s age at the time his prior offenses were committed, his “family
background,” his “association with known criminals,” the fact that he has “more life
ahead” of him,” his “right to prove himself,” and the Court’s belief that “society requires
[Thomas’s] type of criminal history . . . [to] be punished . . . .” (Id. at 73–77.) In light of
this thoughtful discussion, we are confident that the District Court gave appropriate
consideration to the § 3553(a) factors. We therefore reject Thomas’s objections to the
“procedural reasonableness” of his sentence.
B.
Thomas next contends that his 108-month sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the District Court “simply engaged in an arbitrary process of selecting a
sentence” that was “significantly greater than necessary in light of the underlying conduct
7
to which he pled guilty . . . .” Appellant’s Br. 14. We find this argument to lack merit as
well.
In determining whether a sentence is substantively reasonable, we must “ascertain
whether [the § 3553] factors were reasonably applied to the circumstances of the case.”
Cooper, 437 F.3d at 330. Because we accord great deference to the District Court’s
sentencing determination, “we will affirm it unless no reasonable sentencing court would
have imposed the same sentence on that particular defendant for the reasons the district
court provided.”
Tomko, 562 F.3d at 568.
Thomas’s argument on this point is largely predicated on his contention that the
District Court committed procedural error at sentencing. Again, we disagree with
Thomas’s assertion that the District Court did not meaningfully consider the § 3553(a)
factors. The District Court expressed its view that the Government’s recidivism concerns
were “a little much,” and indicated its intent to “fashion a sentence that is more
appropriate to [the Court’s] view of [Thomas’s] life.” (App. 73–74.) Based upon our
review of the record, we conclude that the District Court’s sentence was “‘premised upon
appropriate and judicious consideration of the relevant factors.’” United States v.
Lessner, 498 F.3d 185, 204 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Schweitzer,
454 F.3d
197, 204 (3d Cir. 2006)). Thomas’s sentence was therefore substantively reasonable.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the sentence imposed by the District
Court.
8
